Twocubdad

I applaude your guy's initative. I have no idea what's going to work for your troop, but I can tell you what we're trying. Any QM we've had has suggested the same system yours is proposing. After cleaning the store room only to have it wrecked by someone rooting around looking for something, everyone scrambles for the padlocks and clipboards. The problem we found is that with a check out system like that is that the QM must be present 100% of the time for it to work. Over the past six months we've gone to a new system which we distinguish between patrol and troop gear and permanently assign patrol gear to the patrols. Before everything was kept together as troop gear. Patrols would check out gear from the troop QM before each campout. We had patrol tubs for each patrol, but they generally included only misc. cooking gear. Tents, stoves, lanterns, etc., was troop gear and checked out for each camp out. The big problem was lack of accountability. Break a tent pole? No problem. Chances are someone else would get stuck with that tent next time. Space was also a problem in that it was difficult to access a particular item without unpacking everything. Another issue was lack of security. If you couldn't find what you needed, it was easy to "borrow" it from another patrol tub. Over the past six months we've had a major capital program and have replaced much of the troop's camping gear (that was a separate issue from the checkout/inventory system). We bought enough stuff for every patrol to have everything they need -- tents, stoves, lanterns, cook gear, etc. All that stuff is permanently assigned to the patrols. It is the responsibility of the PATROL and the patrol QM to keep up with the stuff. The Troop QM inventories the patrol gear every six months (at PL election time). Broken or missing gear is billed to everyone in the patrol. We also built locking cabinets for each patrol. Keys to the lockers are controlled by the troop QM and his adult advisor. If something is lost or broken, the patrol is 100% accountable. One of the big advantages of this is that it is a HUGE boost to the patrol method. The troop QM still has plenty to do. His number one task is to work with the patrol QMs to make sure they are keeping up with their patrol stuff. He also has responsibility for the remaining troop gear which now consists of one-off camping stuff -- like Dutch ovens -- which the patrols can check out as needed and program material like rope, first aid training materials, pioneering stuff and the like. He still maintains checkout sheets for this. He is also responsible for buying, stocking and distributing consumable supplies like paper products, cleaning supplies and the like. How's it working? Too early to tell. We've only recently put all the parts together. The past six months we've had a very weak QM. I'm hoping that with a stronger QM and everything in place, we'll make a go of it this fall. I'll let you know. Two things made this possible for us which may not be possible for other troops: 1) we had the money to go out and buy new gear and outfit every patrol identically. We could have made do with the old stuff, but assigning stuff to the patrols is fairly inefficient. We have to have four tents for every patrol where as before we only had enough tents to cover the average number of Scouts attending a campout. The second issue was having the space to build the new lockers. To me the key to this system is making the patrols accountable and the key to that is having a secure place to store their gear.

Doctor, lawyer or Indian Chief, if he thinks the SE can be of value, he sould talk to him. My first call would be to my CC to let him know what's going on. At some point I would also call my COR and IH for the same reason. My second call would be to my District Director, because I value his opinion and I believe he has more contacts -- if not experience -- in such things. For one, one of the other DE has an extensive background in juvenile issues and may be helpful. I would also hope, that at some point in the career of anyone who is a professional in a youth services organization, they all, including the SE, would have some training in this area. Again, that's a hope, not a fact. And with the possibility of a bad outcome -- whether that's police involvement, media attention, or a really bad outcome -- he may like a heads up. Other resources would be an ASM who is an ex-cop, one of my committee members who is a middle school teacher, my son's old pediatrician who used be be a den leader, maybe the counselor at the school, any number of school administrators I know. Sooner or later I would try the yellow pages, but I would definitely find help.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Despite my on-going crusade against the bureauracy of ESLP project approvals, I'm okay with this. It's reasonable that if a committee member has to sign off on the project, and the member is doing so on behalf of the committee, then the committee should be able to establish an approval process. I can also see where presenting a project would be a good exercise for a Scout. HOWEVER, I can also see this as a slippery slope. The real work and mentoring needs to be going on between the SM or his designee and the Eagle candidate. Barring any real problems, I would hope that by the time the proposal gets to the committe -- or the district advancement committee for that matter -- the presentation and approval should be a victory lap. I most certainly would not want to see a troop committee become another set of hoops for a Scout to jumb through.

Hands on stuff. Pinewood Derby cars, crafts your Cubs have made. Anything you can put in a boy's hands while you talk to him. I always liked having a "before" Pinewood Derby kit and ask the boys if they think they can make a race car out of this block of wood. If you could set up a track and let the boys see the cars running, that would be great. But make sure they get to do it. No demonstrations from behind a barricade. Sets of handbooks are good, too. That gives you the ability to show a boy specifically what he will be doing for his age. Ask your DE for a copy of the recruiting DVD. If you can, have it running in the background. Don't rely on that for your main pitch, but just use it for your holding point if the boys start backing up. When you talk to the boys, be sure to get down on a knee and talk to them eye-to-eye. Active, active, active!

Thanks, guys. This was somewhat of an exercise in having my son find an answer for himself. He did attend the last Jamboree, he just wasn't an OA member at the time. He is now. I don't any problem with him wearing the flap. I have another Scout in the troop who is wearing the same flap, but didn't attend Jambo. My advice for him would be not to wear the flap, but he hasn't asked. It's not like he's wearing an Eagle he bought on Ebay. I think in both cases, it's just a cool flap that they like.

I think plastic-backed badges killed sewing on badges by hand. I can hardly push a needle through one myself. I know the trick is to just catch the edge of the binding, not go through the plastic, but that's a fairly fine skill to master.

This question is coming from #1 son: Our lodge produces and sells commemorative flaps for all sorts of special occasions from NOAC to Jamboree to the camp dog had puppies. Is it acceptable for an OA member to wear a flap commemorating an event he did not attend? How about for an event he attended but was held before he was in the OA? I don't recall seeing this in any literature, so it may be more a question of etiquette.

HIJACK NOTIFICATION Please allow me to change the question a bit. So what do you do with this kid? All the boys I've had age out -- and given the demographics of the troop, there have been many -- most are in the last few months of their senior year and only make an occasional guest appearance at troop meetings. Two of my best Eagles drop in occassionally and have even gone to a couple days of summer camp. They don't DO anything, other than hang out and set good examples, which is a terrific thing. Now I have a new Eagle, just turned 18 but is just beginning his senior year. He'll be around for at least another year. The lad is very immature and commands very little respect from the other Scouts. He has some isssues, but I'll leave it to say he is fairly high maintenance, requiring a lot of adult involvement, although not necessarily adult supervision. Last campout he was goofing off and was the last one holding up the troop's departure. We had the "you're an adult leader now" talk and I explained it's no longer my job to keep up with him. He is involved in OA, but there are no nearby Venturing crew nearby. Bottom line is that the kid is a net consumer of resources, not a contributor. Clearly, he's not ready to serve as a true ASM. I know the book answer is that we can decline his adult application and just tell him "no thanks". While that may be permissible, I don't feel like it's the right thing either. His birthday was with the last month, so I've not had a chance for a real sit down talk. I plan to require he take training at the next possible opportunity -- maybe even requiring he complete the training before attending another campout. What else would you guys put on the agenda for that meeting? How would you manage his involvement in the troop? Options?

Find help.

Maybe not the police, but I would want to involve someone above my pay grade. SE would be an obvious choice. Perhaps a school or church counselor could help. We have a Scouter who is also a cop. I would be comfortable involving him off the record. You can always go to the police formally, but it's hard to unring that bell. What are the boys parents like? Do you feel like they would be supportive or dismissive? Their attitude and involvement would make a difference to me.

You guys are all engineering and business majors, right? Did you never take a literature class? Titanic is not a movie about what happens to the ship. It's about the two kids. Even then it's not a suspense mystery. We know in the beginning that the girl makes it. Who's the old lady telling the story? The movie doesn't rely on a surprise ending. Win All You Can does rely on most participants not knowing the game. If after playing the first round, one participant raised his hand and said, "everyone of us played this last month at Roundtable, we know how it works," where would that leave things? An early crackerbarrel! But back to Introduction to American Cinema 101: for our next lesson, please watch "The Sting" and be prepared to discuss it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I have a slightly different take on it. I see your #2 concept as the goal -- the shinning city on the hill, if you will. Most of us are trying to reach the city. Some are closer than other, some are wandering in the wrong direction. It is for each of us as leaders to evaluate our unit and resources and chart the best course for our units to get there. I understand, for example, that giving Scouts free-rein to do as they please at summer camp would be the ideal. But given the program at our camp and the maturity level of our Scouts, for now I believe it is best that they attend all the merit badge classes they commited to. Another example-- I don't yet believe out PLC is at a level at which they should be deciding discipline issues. They've not had the training, experience or, again, maturity, to take that on. BP said, "teach boys to lead, then let them lead" (or something close). That's not an all-at-once, everything-or-nothing, sink-or- swim proposition. In three years our troop has come a long way toward being Scout-led and using the patrol method, but we've not yet reached the top of the hill in every aspect. We are teaching the boys to lead and letting them lead to the extent of their ability. The city we're heading for is a big one. It's kinda hard to tell when, exactly, you crossed the city limits. When you get there there may be parts of town you like better than others. There are lots of different places to call home. Some units may hang their hats on high adventure, some on service or other parts of the program which fit their Scouts and leaders well. That's part of the beauty of the program. I get frustrated with people who quote BP, the SM Hand book or other resources and try to tell you "this is how the program must be run. Either it is the BSA program or it's not." On the other hand, there are people who either don't know the program or choose to ignore it. The vast majority understand the program and are doing their best to implement it. I think most Scouters have a good understanding of the program as it should be run. But not everyone is there yet. Whether or not you son's troop is headed on the right direction, the wrong direction or run off into a ditch is an evaluation you need to make.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

So, Bob, what's your point? I don't hear anyone here arguing for a return to the old days of cloak and dagger and "It will be revealed to you in due time" baloney. Maybe you just think keeping the ending of games and movies "secret" is allowing that camel's nose back under the tent? Possibly, but I don't see that as a problem. As I said before, an overall philosophy of openness is not inconsistent with an element of surprise in certain parts of the course. But neither do I hear you advocating that we telegraph the endings of the movies and games to participants. So I'm just not sure where the point of contention lies. I'm not especially a fan of the game. When it works -- as it did in the course in which I was a participant -- it works well and drives home a very effective point. But it also has a high probability of flopping. On the one hand, I've seen people get really upset. I've also seen it not work at all leaving the participants wondering what the point was. I think they could do better.

We've got Marilyn Monroe (her real name was Norma Jean Baker) and George Patton in our tree. Horizon -- how many degrees does that make us? Genealogy was my main hobby before Scouting took over everything. Maybe one day I'll get back to it. An interesting story regarding genealogy and race: I had a fairly extensive web site on a number of related families. One night I got a call from a college student in Florida. Her family is from the same county as mine with the same surname. Because her family is black, she was contacting me to ask if it was possible that her ancestors could have been slaves belonging to my ancestors. I had a few slave records posted on the web, but nothing connecting to her family. After asking about what she knew of her family, I discovered that I already had her ggg-grandfather, John Wilburn, in my data base. He was a first cousin of my grandfather. Shortly after the Civil War, John Wilburn married an ex-slave and had a very large family. Of course her family was completely ostricised from our family. It was interesting to me that in the span of two generations, (from my great-grandfather to my father) all knowledge of how our families were related was totally lost. Another interesting tidbit was that in the 1860 census, John is listed as a white. In the 1870 census, he is listed as "mullato". By 1880 he is "negro." Obviously, he didn't change races. But I wonder if he changed his perceptions, if the census takers made an assumption or if John reported his race differently to avoid a hassle. I went to one of their family reunions and had a blast. The only white guy in the crowd. People's reaction to the discovery was also interesting. Most folks took it in stride. Some of the older folks in my family were somewhat bothered at the idea of having black relatives and several told me I should have let sleeping dogs lie. Some of the younger people in her family were upset to learn that they were descended from slave owners. Interesting stuff.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were discussing the game, not the course in general. If we are discussing the course in general, you are absolutely correct, Bob. But if we are discussing the game specifically, it clearly works better if there is some element of surprise to it. That the overall philosophy of the course is one of openness and transparency but that there are elements which are more effective the details aren't known in advance are not contradictory concepts. You can -- and should -- have it both ways. Another example: almost everyone shows up for the course asking about The Ticket. As you point out, the ticket is not a secret and a good staffer will answer a participant's questions to the best of his/her ability. But that doesn't mean they should explain the entire ticket process straight away. I was trained to answer questions about ticket by saying, "relax about your Ticket. Over the next three days you're going to hear everything you need to know. And if you still have questions, it's my job to make sure you get them all answered. Relax and enjoy the course." That's not being secretive and in no way compromises the openness of the course. It's a simple acknowledgement that, 1) there's more to this that can be explained in three minutes, and 2) the experience of Wood Badge is more that the sum of book knowledge contained in the course syllabus. The "reveal" of the game is part of the experience. That experience is enhanced if the participants don't know the ending.

I am also conflicted. It's hard to criticize Scouts who are enthusiastic and motivated. I'm glad they've had a good time. Our unit used the actual Cub Scout program and had enthusiastic and motivated Scouts who also had a good time.

If we can assume the subscription cost would be about the same as Boys' Life, $12, I would probably pay it. But I would also guess that of the 25 or so registered leaders in our unit only four or five would do so. It's unlikely I would use a web version of the magazine. I don't care for the e-zines related to the other magazines I take. But I would sure make better use of the main national site were upgraded.

It's like the OA: it's not secret, but it is more meaningful if there is some sense of mystique to it. Or like a good joke, it's more fun if you don't know the punchline.

I call these guys Eagle Lawyers, but I think the analogy to taxes is so accurate, I may have to start calling them Eagle Tax Accountants. In many areas they are a sympton of the problems of ratcheting Eagle project proposals up to ridiculous bureaucratic levels. As long as we require engineered drawings and Material Data Safety Sheets as part of project proposals, we will need people who can explain to the Scouts what the heck they are. The system which has been developed in our Council and I know others is stupid. We have adults on project review committees setting up expectation and bureaucratic hurdles which require adult Eagle Lawers in the troops to fulfill. Meanwhile, the poor 15-year-old Life Scout waits with a dumb look on his face for the adults to finish their game.

At our recruitment nights we, too, take applications and dues, so the number of folks who show up for "info only" is fairly small. Because the events are run as mutli-pack district events, the sign-in sheets are turned in to the DE and membership people and they are responsible for following up with the families who didn't join. Generally, it is a fairly small number. If you are doing info-oriented recruiting and not converting the tire kickers into recruits, you need to change tactics. Ask for the sale. We just go in with the assumption that everyone is there to sign up for Scouts. Hand them an app and tell them how to make out their check. I don't know if this is what you are asking about, but in my time in the pack, we usually had one or two Scouts who would turn in an app and money and never show up for meetings. Mom/dad said no, conflicts with sports, dog ate my homework, blah, blah, blah. That always told me that our dues were too low. My observation was that we could expect 20 to 25 solid new Cubs per year -- two new Tiger dens, one new Wolf den and a smattering of Bears and Webelos. Much more than that the drop out rate just went up.

I went through this exact problem when we joined the troop. It took three years to fix the problem. At the time, both BoRs and SM conferences were grueling retests. What really opened my eyes to the problem was riding home with my son from his Second Class Scoutmaster's conference. While he passed, he said he couldn't do the lashings and needed to work on them. (Those of you who are paying attention will note, as did I, that lashings are a FIRST CLASS skill.) An added issue our troop had was that many of the committee members doing the BoRs really didn't know the material themselves, and were going by handouts, some of which were outdated and included incorrect information. Ultimately, the solution was a combination of all the things suggested above, including having a committee training session conducted for the troop. Initially, I spent a lot of time politicking with various committee members and selling the proper way to do boards. I kept a printed copy of the online BoR training with me and would whip it out as needed. When I became SM, I immediately changed SM conferences from a retest to a conversation. My approach as ASM and later as SM was to focus on Scout skills with the boys so that retesting would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, as the level of skills within the troop improved, the Board members felt like they needed to raise their standards, too. Ultimately, it all came to a head when I had two very qualified Scouts turned down for fairly picky things. One Scout was turned down because he included heat stroke as a hurry case. The next month he was turned down again because he left heat stroke off the list. Actually, the board was going to let him slide the second time, but didn't because he seemed to have a bad attitude. No kidding! They're lucky the kid did slap somebody! At that point, I had been SM for two years and had the clout to go to the committee and force a change. By then I had enough support on the committee. It did, however take a that final push to get it done. I think the best thing I did was to start by focusing on improving the Scouts' basic skills. Obviously that is a good thing in any case, but it let the committee folks know that I wasn't just trying to pencil-whip advancement. One issue you have to look out for is the feeling among committee members that you're trying to gut Boards of Review and turn them into a rubber-stamp. Everyone wants to feel like what they are doing is important. Many BoR members feel that their job is to be the gatekeepers of advancement and that, by golly, they're going to make sure the boys have really earned their advancement. Folks with that mindset see a proper BoR as a touchy-feely cop out. Understanding the nuiance of what a BoR is really about can be a tough sell. But the key is to make the BoR members still feel vital. They have to understand that they are still in a gatekeeper role, but they should be judging the quality of the troop's program, not the long-term memory of individual Scouts. You also need to find support at the Council or District level. Make sure the people who are running the training support the proper procedures. Our first try at the committee training thing was to send three committee members to a Council-run committee training course. The instructor basically blew-off the official Board of Review syllabus and taught the class "how we do it in my troop." My guys came home and reported that we were already doing things the way they were taught. I blew a gasket and called my buddy on the training committee who went to the training committee and blew another gasket. They then arranged for our troop to have another session with an instructor who knew the program. Good luck, be patient. Be confident that you are headed in the right direction.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Great questions! I can't wait for the answers. I have all the same problems. I have just those issues with one of my DCs now. This Scout has been DC for his younger brother's den for almost two years. (Great!) His dad is the pack CC, but attends all den functions with the younger son, so I have some of the same suspicions you allude to. The dad makes me nervous in that he's all about his son making Eagle "between football and lacrosse seasons." (Grrrrrr). The few pack functions I've been to the the DC seems to be doing scut work for his dad, no real program involvement with the cubs. On the other hand, I had two other recent DCs who did great jobs for their dens and stayed engaged with the troop. Unfortunately, the time commitment of two Scout meetings a week nearly killed them and their parents. They made it less than a year. Thinking about this as I'm writing this, I suppose a big part of all this is our old bugaboo "active participation." I don't have a problem with the two DCs who stayed active in the troop because I was constantly in touch with them. Just in passing, we would talk about their involvement with the dens and I would hear about what they were doing. No idea what was going on with the other one. Being a den chief is a great experience. I was a DC for several years as a Scout. It was my younger brother's den, but the meeting was held after school at a neighbor's house, so I just walked to the meetings. Den's don't meet like that anymore. The logistics of being a Den Chief now days seems to be a huge burden. I don't think I have unrealistic expectations for the DCs. If two meetings a week are a burden, I don't have a problem with the den being the priority. But when possible, I do expect the DC to attend troop meetings -- and it should be possible a couple times a month.

Greg -- I read this whole dad-gummed thread and you beat me to the punch on the very last post. While I like the idea of Cooking being returned to the required list and NJ's option list of Scout-skill MBs, my greatest complaint is with the number of elective MBs. I would increase the total required to 25 or 26. Because of the way many Scout camps are run, by the time a Scout finishes his third year summer, he's picked up the nine elective MBs almost by osmosis. Boys miss one of the main benefits of the MB program -- exploring career or interest areas for the first time -- because they don't need to. Greg's right -- almost every Scout, First Class and above, can recite the list of "gimme" badges they can get without breaking a sweat: pets or dog care or both, music, reading, scholarship, wood carving, basketry. There's six of the nine right there. I'm not discounting these badges, but when they are all a Scout earns, he's missing a great opportunity.

If I were in your unit, Jet, I would be very supportive of the changes you are suggesting. I thik they will generally increase the level of Scout leadership in the troop. It may not represent the by-the-book, picture-perfect ideal of a boy led troop, but you're heading in the right direction. In discussing program and policy on the Internet, I think we tend to argue in the extremes. Truth is most of us are in your position with less than perfect troops that we are trying mold. Boy-led doesn't mean adult absent. Youth Leadership and Adult Association are both Methods of Scouting. We have a responsibility to guide the Scouts into good decisions. The Scoutmaster is ultimately responsible for the program. Allowing the election of a SPL you know will crash and burn may or may not be a good idea. Sometimes controlled failure is a good teaching tool, but sometimes not. The SPL and the troop may learn a good lesson about selecting leaders, but the cost of that lesson may be that the troop program is in the latrine for six months. We have a responsibility to ensure that all the Scouts in the troop receive a good program, not just those learning leadership skills. The lesson I've learned from both experience and from other long-time Scoutmasters is that I have to continually monitor and adjust the level of adult involvement. Sometimes adjustments are made on a macro scale, as with the election of stronger or weaker junior leaders. Sometimes the adjustments are on a micro scale as weekly programs ebb and flow. Don't mis-intrepret that to mean that I'm jumping in and rescuing every little mistake. I'm not. It's more that that the size, height and tension of the safety net needs regular attention. One of my rookie mistakes as a new SM was to try to push for 100% Scout led troop meetings at a time when the SPL and PLC wasn't quite ready for it. When I took over the troop it was more adult absent than boy led. We conducted TJLT and held monthly PLC meetings for the first time in years. At the end of the first year, I was all pumped up to have the Scouts run the troop meetings. Unfortunately, just because I was ready didn't mean the Scouts were. The new SPL just didn't have the interpersonal skills necessary -- especially since this was new to the whole troop. It was a rough year and I think from a Scout skill and instruction standpoint the troop suffered for it. Many of the middle-aged Scouts were totally bored and disconnected. But from the standpoint of ultimately becoming more Scout-led, the results were worthwhile. The following year, we tried to adjust the mix of pure Scout led meetings and activities with more adult involvement. We're still trying to get it right. In terms of how the SPL and PLs are selected, I believe the SM should offer his advice and consent over who goes on the ballot for SPL. Scouts interested in running must first have a Scoutmaster Conference on the subject. I've had boys who want to be SPL who weren't ready for the job and I've steered them in other directions. We often have elections with only one name on the ballot (only once due to me, usually because we have fairly few older Scouts who want the job and they tend to horse trade for jobs). In the past the PL elections have been wide open. That's changing. We're now going to require that PL's be First Class (that's always been an informal, unenforced rule) and have completed troop junior leader training. This last term several of my older (14y.o.) guys thought it would be fun to dump all the patrol jobs onto the younger guys. Had they been willing to let those boys lead it would have been fine, but it was just their way of sticking it to the system. Their next SM conference will be an eye opener for them. I've had good and bad results from PL elections. When my older son first crossed over into the troop, they elected the popular, outgoing kid who they all perceived to be a leader as their first PL. (The troop was not properly using the NSP program at the time.) That kid attended a total of two troop meetings and was never heard from again. After floundering for a month or so waiting for their PL to return, the APL stepped up and the patrol moved forward. In that case, those guys learned a good lesson about selecting leaders which has stuck with them ever since. On the other hand, a year or so later, the following class of Scouts elected a PL only because he needed the POR. This kid was a troublemaker. When things didn't go his way he would either abandon the group or actively try to undermine it. None of the boys respected him or wanted to follow his lead. While these boys may have learned a lesson about dealing with a lousey boss, the problems caused and the damage done in those six months is still being felt in the troop two years later.

Another myth for your consideration: Units and Councils may adopt health and safety policies more stringent than those of national, but may not relax national policy. True or false?